Male Roles Vs. Female Roles in Fiction: Discussion/Analysis/Troperwank

Didn't think that was a term actually used outside of memes and the ocational fandom. That honestly sounds more like an overly complicated method of trying to cover for the appearance.

Most games usually just have a - chararcaters depicted are at least 18 years of age -

Which has included phone games, web novels and games video games. The far less complicated answer to putting in a character that didn't have a growth spurt or is just short and looks childlike.

As somebody who is short... fuck that noise.

It took until I was thirty before creeps quit hitting on me, hoping I'd indulge their "legal kiddie" fantasies if I dieted, banded and shaved. I'd get paid! *heaves*

Games like that don't help. And, get short people like me having to fend creepy and scary idiots off, to boot. It's not pleasant.

Especially because you just know what they want your height for. Heck, it's only slightly less degrading then those twerps who just have a fetish for shortstack and refuse to hear the words "fuck off".

Edited by Euodiachloris on Apr 17th 2019 at 9:43:47 AM

I don't think the lack of media would change a persons perversion towards that sort of thing. They would still be massive creeps with our without media involvement.

I say this as a person that very few people have actually been able to get my age right within five years.

Edited by Darthwyn on Apr 17th 2019 at 4:42:51 AM

Normalizing creepy, stalky behaviour in gameplay ain't helping. Whatever you say.

Edited by Euodiachloris on Apr 17th 2019 at 9:51:16 AM

There's a severe question about how much video games normalize anything as people have been trying to blame video games for violence and sexuality. Again, this is the same argument by the Christian Right for why New Media Is Evil. It's a why of enforcing societal control and whenever you do it, you open the floodgates for awful people to take control.

Allow Dee Snider to speak for me.

Frank Zappa actually has a much better version and much more awesome in its humiliation but it's 30 minutes long.

And if you say, "This is different" then you have to ask where the difference is and what is the difference.

Why should X be punished and not NWA? Or Twisted Sister? Or John Denver (he was there too).

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Apr 17th 2019 at 2:01:49 AM

I did find a list of games that got effected by the policy change and it does include links that mention more details regarding said games.

list

And once again that’s a big old cop-out. If you acknowledge the premise that media can inform and affect reality (which you already have in this thread) then you also acknowledge it can have a negative effect depending on the themes presented.

I'll take your word on it. I was too Squicked out to play any further as soon as I read that.

Edited by TobiasDrake on Apr 17th 2019 at 4:03:11 AM

It's not a cop out. I'm asking for what exactly is the line and how do you define that line.

Barring hate speech and inciting to commit acts in RL, I support freedom to speech.

And yes, science supports people who consume awful fiction are less likely to act on awful urges.

But I've said my piece.

I realize you've said your piece and I'm not trying to continue the discussion, but I have to ask. Do you have a source for that?

Because I was under the impression that studies have shown that "fiction as an outlet" is at best unclear at worst actively debunked.

I know that therapists seems to encourage it, but it reaaaaally depends on what level we're talking about here.

Like, there is an entire spectrum to people who might have reason to engage in dark stories. So even if one is debunked, another might be more true, etc.

As an example, if you're mostly just dealing with "I need to be stressed and feel bad emotions", fiction is pretty great! because you can feel the emotions, cry, and then discard them because, well, it's fiction.

If you're dealign with "a bad thing happened to me and it caused Problems" some folks get comfort from seeing the thing played out to contextualize, others do not (and some use more unrealistic stories, whereas others seek more nitty gritty stuff).

If we're talking like, far more severe issues with complex origins that need prolonged help? That I'm less sure on the back and forths.

Edited by MrAHR on Apr 17th 2019 at 6:34:48 AM

Yeah, I wouldn’t exactly say “science has confirmed”. There’s nowhere near confirmation on that, at best a tenuous relation, so that’s either an outright lie or a total misunderstanding of the reporting on the subject.

I’ll also add that if the only thing you oppose is hate speech you’re A-okay with a whole bunch of problematic stuff.

Edited by archonspeaks on Apr 17th 2019 at 3:51:11 AM

I was wondering how people feel about the "woman used to be a sex worker as part of her dark and troubled past" trope and if there are both good and bad applications of the trope.

Well I guess I have an example that can be seen as a good usage of the trope. Aranyélet in its third season has Erika, a policewoman side character who one of the main characters, Mira, suspects is working with human traffickers. Turns out that while Erika was working on moving women, it was to save sex-workers and bring them back from brothels, and in this, she is working together with the man who saved her from the same fate way back when.

Erika is a kinda complex, no-nonsense character though who does some questionable stuff in the series too.

Edited by akanesarumara on Apr 20th 2019 at 1:37:33 PM

I am against the criminalization of thought crimes. Child porn is a crime with a victim: the child who was filmed. Child molestation is a crime with a victim: the child who was molested. But as long as it's just telling a story or drawing a picture, then it has not left the realm of pure thought. There is no victim, and I feel that we should not judge there to be a crime. Just like how fantasizing about killing your annoying boss at work isn't a crime until you start buying guns and drawing up a plan.

The fact that it is a crime in some places, just to write these stories or draw these pictures, disgusts me far more than the content itself. That is literally policing thoughts.

That said, Sony is a private entity that can do whatever the hell it wants to protect its own reputation. They should not be obligated to deal in subject matter they find unpleasant.

Edited by Clarste on Apr 20th 2019 at 5:21:07 AM

Yup.

About the only thing I'd otherwise mandate by law is a BBFC-style system that to all intents and purposes allows parents and retailers a way to judge what is being sold to whom — and, whose standards are constantly being adjusted to reflect changes in society at large.

It's not censorship; producers might well censor themselves to get a wider audience across age brackets, but they don't have to do that if they are happy with an extreme niche. Nor should there be blanket restrictions on anything... save for the profiting from outright illegal activity and employment malpractice.

But, by the same token, it shouldn't be buyer beware out there, either. A standardised, spoiler-free blurb telling you what you are in for if you play/ watch/ read/ listen to what you have in your hands is not the end of the world. Nor is having means to catch dodgy, exploitative shite through a screening process a terrible thing.

Edited by Euodiachloris on Apr 20th 2019 at 1:58:02 PM

Bit confused what is argument here?

Like is argument that they should monitor what kind of continent is being shown or that they shouldn't show one type of content at all? If latter, I'm kinda confused about that since doesn't lot of video games glorify revenge, violence, gore, murder, etc so kinda weird if Sony takes stance on sexual content, but not violence

Edited by SpookyMask on Apr 20th 2019 at 4:56:24 PM

This is incorrect, criminalizing fictionalized underage porn does is not a thought crime. Because it's not a form of thought. On the other hand, deciding to draw porn about underage characters is an action so declaring it illicit by definition cannot be a thought crime. So no, it's not "literally policing thoughts", that isn't possible.

Declaring it harmless is also preemptive, the causal relationship between consuming such porn and offending has not been properly established. And that's what should matter, if it increases the rate of sex crimes then it should be banned and if it decreases the rate of sex crimes then it should be legal (same if it has no effect).

The situation is murky and as such it's certainly not reasonable to be angry at the existence of such laws.

Making something a crime just because it could hypothetically lead to another, future crime which is the one you actually care about seems like thought policing to me.

Although you are correct that technically the act of putting something to paper is distinct from merely thinking it.

Edited by Clarste on Apr 20th 2019 at 9:57:58 AM

Cracking down on an action because it encourages future harm is not thought policing, it's just rational law enforcement.

We should not allow anti-vaxxers to take their children to public school for the same reason, because the Law is not incapable of predicting future harm and doing so is not Orwellian.

If banning fictional underage porn can reduce the rates of sexual abuse then we should, any standard of liberty that values the right to produce a very specific kind of porn over the right to not be abused is a poor one indeed.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Apr 20th 2019 at 10:05:19 AM

You really think it's as directly causally connected as anti-vaxxers? We know how vaccines work, and exactly why it's dangerous to exposed people to disease.

But even if there is a statistical correlation between rape fiction and rape, correlation is not a sufficient legal standard to claim guilt for crime. That's the exact same logic racists use to support race-based police stops. "Well, it feels like black people commit more crimes (even if the actual data is murky), so it's rational to do that." What you're saying is that these people might commit harm in the future, so we should put them in jail before they do so, which is ridiculous.

I mean, you do realize that people go to jail for this, right? For the crime of possession of fictional child porn.

I mean, by all means put them on a watchlist or treat it as a big red flag for the police, but to take away people's rights and treat them as sex offenders for all legal purposes when they haven't even hurt anyone is ridiculous.

Incidentally, sex offenders can't live within a certain distance from schools or parks or libariries or whatnot, and that restriction never goes away, so being arrested for this is equivalent to being exiled from every major city for the rest of your life.

Edited by Clarste on Apr 20th 2019 at 10:34:07 AM

Based on my research, usually when people are taken to trial for fictionalized stuff, it's because they have consumed an inordinate amount, so that's the current legal standard.

Thinking about it a little more, I'd be more okay with it if it weren't treated as exactly the same crime as hurting real children. If you want to discourage it through law, fine, but make it a lesser crime rather than rolling it in with the others.

I've also seen some laws that crack down way harder on uh, art that's clearly real people just drawn? Which makes sense to me.

Also could not find almost any rules based on written stuff. I did spend an afternoon looking into this stuff, but obviously that doesn't mean I have extensive knowledge.